Case Classification for Juvenile Corrections: Evaluation of the Youth Level of Service Inventory in Ohio, 1998-2001 (ICPSR 3965)

Citation

Travis, Lawrence, Latessa, Edward, and Flores, Anthony. Case Classification for Juvenile Corrections: Evaluation of the Youth Level of Service Inventory in Ohio, 1998-2001. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2006-03-30. https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR03965.v1

Summary

This study assessed the effectiveness of the Youth Level of
Service/Case Management Inventory (YLS/CMI or Y-LSI). The Y-LSI is an
instrument for classifying juvenile offender risk of recidivism and
for identifying areas of treatment need that, if addressed, will
result in a reduced risk of recidivism. Three juvenile correction
agencies in Ohio that used the Y-LSI for case classification were the
settings for this study. Data in Part 1 were collected on 1,679 youths
received in the three correctional settings between July 1, 1998, and
June 30, 1999. Youths' files were reviewed to complete the data
collection instruments. These files contained demographic and
background information, Y-LSI assessments, and information relating to
treatment and service referrals, completion of programming, and
supervision outcome. One year after the initial Y-LSI assessments,
reassessment data were collected on youths. Reassessments were
completed on youth at the time of program completion or one year after
the initial assessment. Supervision outcome data were collected two
years after the initial data collection. Data in Part 2 were collected
in 2001 through a survey of 196 agency staff members on their
reactions to the use of the Y-LSI as a classification instrument.

Citation

Travis, Lawrence, Latessa, Edward, and Flores, Anthony. Case Classification for Juvenile Corrections: Evaluation of the Youth Level of Service Inventory in Ohio, 1998-2001. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2006-03-30. https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR03965.v1

Subject Terms

Geographic Coverage

Smallest Geographic Unit

None.

Restrictions

Access to these data is restricted. Users interested in obtaining these data must complete a Restricted Data Use Agreement, specify the reasons for the request, and obtain IRB approval or notice of exemption for their research.

Data Collection Notes

The user guide and codebook are provided by ICPSR in
separate Portable Document Format (PDF) files. The PDF file format was
developed by Adobe Systems Incorporated and can be accessed using PDF
reader software, such as the Adobe Acrobat Reader. Information on how
to obtain a copy of the Acrobat Reader is provided on the ICPSR Web
site.

Study Purpose

This study assessed the effectiveness of the
Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (YLS/CMI or
Y-LSI). The Y-LSI is an instrument for classifying juvenile offender
risk of recidivism and for identifying areas of treatment need that,
if addressed, will result in a reduced risk of recidivism. Three
juvenile correction agencies in Ohio that used the Y-LSI for case
classification were the settings for this study. These were the Ohio
Department of Youth Services (ODYS), the Clermont County Juvenile
Probation Department, and the Butler County Juvenile Rehabilitation
Center. The ODYS operates juvenile institutions and aftercare for
approximately 2,000 delinquent youth each year. ODYS operates a
Release Authority that is authorized to grant release to youth under
its custody. The department and its Release Authority have adopted the
Y-LSI as a central component of case classification. All youth
received by ODYS are administered the Y-LSI. The Butler County
Juvenile Rehabilitation Center is a residential program for males and
females with a program capacity of 46. The average length of stay is
about seven months, and the program is almost always at capacity. The
Clermont County Juvenile Probation Department receives about 1,500
youths each year who were ordered to probation by the Clermont County
Juvenile Court. The department uses the Y-LSI to classify
approximately two-thirds of these youths. This study was designed to
answer three separate but related questions: (1) Is the Y-LSI a valid
predictor of case outcome for juvenile delinquents under correctional
supervision? (2) How do juvenile correctional agencies use the Y-LSI
for the allocation of correctional supervision and resources? and (3)
Are changes in the areas of risk measured by the Y-LSI through
correctional treatment associated with reductions in re-offending
rates by youth?

Study Design

Data for Part 1, Y-LSI and Follow-up Data, were
collected on 1,679 youths received in the three correctional settings
between July 1, 1998, and June 30, 1999. The sample included 960
individuals from ODYS, 626 from Clermont County Juvenile Probation,
and 93 from the Butler County Rehabilitation Center. Youth files were
made available to research staff and were reviewed to complete the
data collection instruments. These files contained a wide variety of
demographic and background information about each youth, including
Y-LSI assessments (which were completed by agency staff at each site).
As a measure of quality control, reliability checks were conducted on
the sites. Y-LSI trained researchers conducted separate Y-LSI
interviews and compared their assessments with those completed by
agency staff. In these checks, a very small random sample of
individuals was selected from each site and interviewed by
researchers. In these comparisons no significant differences were
revealed in terms of the overall Y-LSI risk or in terms of the
individual subcomponent scores. The Y-LSI gathered information
relevant to the youths' offending behavior, assessing the following
eight domains: prior and current offenses/adjudications, family
circumstances/parenting, education/employment, peer relations,
substance abuse, leisure/recreation, personality/behavior, and
attitudes and orientations. Demographic characteristics, as well as
information relating to treatment and service referrals, completion of
programming, and supervision outcome, were also collected from case
files and recoded on the data collection tool. One year after the
initial Y-LSI assessments, reassessment data were collected on
youths. Reassessments were completed on youth at the time of program
completion or one year after the initial assessment. Approximately two
years after the initial data collection, supervision outcome data were
gathered including checks for program completion, violations, new
arrests, seriousness of new arrest, adjudications, and institutional
commitments. These data were collected from each agency in a different
fashion. ODYS and Clermont County Probation provided outcome data
while researchers visited the Butler Residential Treatment Facility
and examined youth files to obtain relevant outcome data. Data in
Part 2, Practitioner Survey Data, were collected in 2001 through a
survey of 196 staff at the three agencies. Packets of surveys and
return envelopes were mailed to each research site. One individual
from each site (usually an administrator) was responsible for staff
completion of these surveys. Responses were kept anonymous to assure
confidentiality. Upon completion surveys were mailed back to the
researchers where the responses were coded and entered into a
database. The survey inquired about agency administrators' and staff's
reactions to the use of the Y-LSI as a classification instrument. It
asked respondents to rate the utility of the instrument and report
their perceptions of ease of use and strengths and weaknesses of the
process. The survey also asked the respondents how the classification
information was used in the management of cases.

Sample

The sampling ratio was 50 percent for the ODYS and
Clermont County Juvenile Probation Department and 100 percent for the
Butler County Rehabilitation Center.

Universe

Part 1: Individuals who entered the Ohio Department of
Youth Services, the Butler County Juvenile Rehabilitation Center, or
the Clermont County Juvenile Probation Department in Ohio between July
1998 and December 1999. Part 2: Staff at these agencies in 2001.

Unit(s) of Observation

Individuals.

Data Source

Data in Part 1 were collected from administrative
records kept by each of the juvenile correction agencies. Part 2 data
were collected through mailback questionnaires.

Data Type(s)

Part 1: administrative records data. Part 2: survey data

Description of Variables

Variables for Part 1, Y-LSI and Follow-up Data,
include date of birth, age, date of first two Y-LSI administrations,
answers for each Y-LSI item, Y-LSI subcomponent composite scores, and
total score for both Y-LSI administrations, gender, race, scores on
other instruments administered by the correctional agencies, including
IQ, parents' criminal history, history of involvement with child
services, presence of siblings, siblings' criminal history, mental
health history, abuse history, school attendance and performance, gang
affiliation, family structure, current offenses and sentences, date
supervision began, level of supervision, violations while under
supervision, violation dates, disciplinary action, type of treatment
undertaken, dates of treatment, whether treatment was successfully
completed, institutional transfers, dates of transfers, prior offenses
for up to 11 offenses, prior offense dates, prior offense
dispositions, date of release, recidivism at three, six, and twelve
months after release, and several derived variables. Variables for
Part 2, Practitioner Survey Data, include date, gender, date of birth,
years at agency and in current position, education completed,
experience with the Y-LSI, assessment of how appropriately placed
youths in agency were, the most critical needs of youths in the agency,
most important types of treatment youths should receive, time spent
assessing youths at intake, rating of how objective Y-LSI was, amount
of paperwork involved in using the Y-LSI, how difficult it was to
administer the Y-LSI, how helpful the Y-LSI was for youth placement,
identifying treatment needs, case planning, helping the youths, and
decision justification, extent of use of Y-LSI by agency, strengths of
the Y-LSI, weaknesses of the Y-LSI, and ways to improve the Y-LSI.

Response Rates

Part 1: Not available. Part 2: The individuals
responsible for ensuring the completion of surveys by staff
administering the Y-LSI provided assurances that surveys were
completed by all appropriate staff.

Original Release Date

2004-10-18

Version Date

2006-03-30

Version History

2004-10-18 ICPSR data undergo a confidentiality review and are altered when necessary to limit the risk of disclosure. ICPSR also routinely creates ready-to-go data files along with setups in the major statistical software formats as well as standard codebooks to accompany the data. In addition to these procedures, ICPSR performed the following processing steps for this data collection:

Standardized missing values.

2006-03-30 File UG3965.ALL.PDF was removed from any previous datasets and flagged as a study-level file, so that it will accompany all downloads.

2006-03-30 File CQ3965.ALL.PDF was removed from any previous datasets and flagged as a study-level file, so that it will accompany all downloads.

Notes

The public-use data files in this collection are available for access by the general public. Access does not require affiliation with an ICPSR member institution.

One or more files in this data collection have special restrictions. Restricted data files are not available for direct download from the website; click on the Restricted Data button to learn more.

The citation of this study may have changed due to the new version control system that has been implemented.

This website is funded through Inter-agency agreements through the Bureau of
Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Justice and the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention of
the Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Neither the U.S. Department of Justice nor any of its
components operate, control, are responsible for, or necessarily endorse, this website (including, without limitation,
its content, technical infrastructure, and policies, and any services or tools provided).